Six core CPU's an advantage for CoD?

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

We do know that CLIFFS OF DOVER will take advantage of multi core CPU's, the question is, how many cores can be utilized? Are 4 or 6 core processors better?

Up to this point, the technical discussion on this board has been pointing mostly towards a 2500k/2600k solution for a CPU. However, Intel also has its Core I7 970 and 980x six core processors. Would these have an advantage versus the 2600k? Can the game use the extra cores? ( I am not including the AMD six core processors in this discussion, they fall quite a bit behind in performance, although obviously not in value)

Oleg Maddox: We use a hybrid multi-threaded system. Separate threads are in sound or asynchronous loading of resources used. Moreover, we believe, for example, during loading or calculating Geometire TPL (Task Parallel Library) for the efficient use of available cores one.

Here is a benchmark test which may be relevant, none of the CPU's in this test are overclocked, the 2600k can be overclocked to 4.3, the 980x can be overclocked to 4.4, the 970, which is not shown in the test, usually falls just a notch behind the 980x in comparisons, can be overclocked to 4.1:

3DMark Vantage's CPU Test 2 is a multi-threaded test designed for comparing relative game physics processing performance between systems. This test consists of a single scene that features an air race of sorts, with a complex configuration of gates. There are aircraft in the test that trail smoke and collide with various cloth and soft-body obstacles, each other, and the ground. The smoke spreads, and reacts to the planes as they pass through it as well and all of this is calculated on the host CPU.

This test clearly shows a big advantage for the 980x.

Of course, the 980 is priced around $1000, quite a bundle. The 970 is much more reasonable, priced under $600. (and the price is falling) But both the six core processors are quite a bit more expensive than the 2600k and especially the 2500k.

So here's the question for those hardware geeks on this board:

Are the six cores worth it? Performance wise and price wise?

[lbuchele]

Probably only somebody at Maddox Games can answer this question.

[WTE_Galway]

Or just get the 8 core SB due for release in Q3.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,81.../CPU/Download/

[swiss]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

This test clearly shows a big advantage for the 980x.

..in this single test, yes.

The real life advantage is remarkably smaller, it also varies from game to game.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by swiss

..in this single test, yes.

The real life advantage is remarkably smaller, it also varies from game to game.

The thread was not referencing 'game to game', it was referencing one game specifically. CLIFFS OF DOVER.

Of course older games are going to be more dependent on raw speed, rather than multiple cores. CoD is clearly optimized for use with multiple core processors, the question is, how much use can the program make of CPU's with six cores?

Perhaps it is too much to ask of people on this board. Hopefully we might see a reply from Luthier or Oleg.

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

Great question Buzzsaw. I read those sections several times myself. Of all the posts that have come to this board in it's existance - this is the thread I hope one or more of the developers posts in.

If they don't respond to this, I believe it's because - "They don't really know, exactly". Why? Because at some point, the number of various systems and software becomes an counter-productive systems-administration burden on developers, so that they are paying almost as much money keeping the varied CPU/GPU/OS's current and documented - as they are on programmers and graphics developers.

With 15 years of working with and managing development of threaded, advanced graphics and signal processing software, I can safely say: "I certainly don't have a clue"

As a simmer, I spent 18 months on the ROF beta team testing various configurations of hardware (will never do that again, too much work and too little play) against many beta builds, and comparing my results to other testers performance, in reasonably controlled conditions. What did I learn? or relearn?

That testing on 3D Mark or other benchmark software and/or examining hardware performance on non-simulation software (i.e. FPS type games) - tells you next to nothing about how applications like FSX, ROF, Il2, DCS will behave.

This gets even more complicated with threaded and partially threaded applications, of which ROF is/was.

Without knowing how the routines are structured and how the software scales under load, we can't know.

Between the Intel and AMD offerings - how significant is real cores vs hyper-cores in performance of this application?

The only "wild speculation" I would even hazard a guess on is that in my development group at work, where we do have access and choice between Intel and AMD solutions - we've tended to stick with AMD (Opteron mainly) due to cost/performance and inability to obtain significant threaded performance from hyperthreading in our applications.

Our code is fully threaded. Period. On the other hand I know of no entertainment software which is.

Hehe - so with all that I don't know crap

What I would recommend we do - in lieu of explict recommendations from 1C - is form our own voluntary testing team early on. Find a benchmark, set of standards and go for it. Like on day 2 of the release. With the purpose of informing the community of hardware/OS performance. All we have to do is get organinzed a little.....

It would be at least as productive as much of what's currently being discussed in every forum concerning CoD, IMHO.

S!

Gunny

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

good idea

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by TUSA/TX-Gunslinger

What I would recommend we do - in lieu of explict recommendations from 1C - is form our own voluntary testing team early on. Find a benchmark, set of standards and go for it. Like on day 2 of the release. With the purpose of informing the community of hardware/OS performance. All we have to do is get organinzed a little.....

It would be at least as productive as much of what's currently being discussed in every forum concerning CoD, IMHO.

S!

Gunny

Excellent idea. Unfortunately, don't think I would be able to participate, since my current system probably won't run CoD. I have an older Dual Core Pentium with a 512mg video card which runs IL-2 reasonably well at lower settings. I have been waiting before I buy a new system.

Certainly if Oleg or Luthier happens to notice this thread, I'd encourage them to respond.

[T}{OR]

Even if the engine can support and use 6 or 8 cores - how many of us have 6 or 8 core CPU's? 8, 6 and 4 core Bulldozers code-name Zambezi (FX8000, FX6000 and FX4000) are due out in late June. And the existing high end 6 core i7's - and how many people can afford that? Not much.

This is a game we're talking about (be it a simulator or not), and if they manage to utilize all 4 cores/threads - it would be a great peace of programming indeed. As for Hyper Threading - pretty much useless in games. Video editing - by all means, games - marginal performance increase, at best.

The above linked tests are purely synthetic, and do not represent the real life scenario.


Even if the game is built to support / use more than 4 threads - it is highly unlikely that those 'switches' will be turned on for CoD, more likely for the next iteration in the IL2 series.

[choctaw111]

I am really anxious to see how well a 6 or even an 8 core CPU will handle it.
I will post some benchmarks for my quad core.
Even though it is a couple years old, it still does very well.
Hopefully I am not putting a little too much confidence in it as I have not been able to really find out how all 4 cores working together in a program designed to use them will work.